1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is added to Paragraph 2 as follows, or where the defendant added the judgment of the new argument at the trial of the court of first instance.

[No. 13] Certificate of No. 18 of the 4th page 18 shall include a 13 number; hereinafter the same shall apply.

i)in Doro-friendly;

The fifth sentence "162,119,200 won" shall be 62,119,200 won.

Part 6 of the 6th sentence is as follows.

As to this, the plaintiff argued to the effect that the defendant cannot exercise his right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the possession of the plaintiff, since he acquired the right to claim the reimbursement of beneficial expenses against the defendant (the plaintiff acquired the right to claim the reimbursement of beneficial expenses against the defendant as preserved claim, but as seen later, the defendant is not a person liable for the repayment of beneficial expenses

(i)from 19 up to 6 pages 8 to 19 up to 6 of the Act are as follows:

“A) The right to claim reimbursement of beneficial expenses pursuant to Article 203(2) of the Civil Act is created only when the possession is returned to the person who has restored the possession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da30471, 93Da30488 delivered on December 28, 1993). The aforementioned right to claim reimbursement of useful expenses is established when the possessor does not have the right to lawfully possess the property, such as a contractual relationship, and is obligated to comply with the owner’s claim for return of the property. In such cases, the possessor may exercise the right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the owner at the time of the recovery of possession, i.e., the person to whom the owner was at the time of disbursement

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64752 Decided July 25, 2003). (b) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Evidence Nos. 7 and 15, E acquired ownership by winning a successful bid on November 16, 2016, and E, as Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Gadan1068, the removal of each of the instant buildings and the delivery of the instant land against the Plaintiff, etc.